Where, in the Constitution of the United States, does it say that First Amendments rights are only for?

Question

certain people? According to Columbia University, the Iranian President and Hitler would both be welcome to speak at their institution, but not an American who is critical of the current crisis in illegal immigration. What would happen to a Columbia student who protested the university's stance? Would he be arrested, expelled, assaulted by faculty and fellow students alike? What gives Columbia the right to be selective about who enjoys First Amendment protection? It certainly isn't the Constitution or the law of the land. I've placed this question in the "politics" section because Columbia's position is strictly political in nature, but it could have gone in the Law and Ethics section because Columbia is violating both the Constitution and the rules of ethical behavior. Universities in the western world were once institutions of learning, but are now nothing more than propaganda mills, replenishing the left and making a mockery of the term "higher education".

Answer 1

I don't this is so much a First Amendment issue.

This is case of how Columbia is willing to only listen to one side of the issue and to close off open debate.

A leader who is now supplying weapons that is getting our troops killed be welcomed and those who are defending this country should be shut out.

That is clear sign the Columbia doesn't want Free Speech or open debate about issues.

Call it what you want but I think it is case of being closed minded.

So Columbia has shown itself as what it is a campus of closed minded people.

I thought liberals were open minded I was wrong.

Answer 2

In 2006 Columbia University invited Jim Gilchrist, founder of the American Minutemen to speak.

In another answer on this subject you quoted Nikita Kruschev as saying "we will bury you". This quote was spoken on American soil when Kruschev was making an eleven day tour of the United States. In 1959, Americans were willing to let Kruschev speak and we ended up having the last laugh.

Answer 3

First of all, Columbia University is not run by the government, so they can choose any speaker they want, or don't want. Second, I can't for life of me see how they are violating the First Amendment rights, please explain. Instead of automatically assuming that Columbia's staff and students all support terrorists (a ridiculous assumption, I must say), let's see what happens first. If I were a Columbia student I would love the chance to ask this person why he has done what he has done.

Answer 4

If Columbia is a private institution, then they can choose whoever they want to speak -- or limit whoever they want to speak -- since as a private forum, constitutional protections don't apply.

If Columbia is a public school -- thus acting as a govt agency -- then constitutional protections do apply, since the govt cannot censor people -- but the school can still choose who it wants as a keynote speaker.

As for your question about the protester -- it depends on how the protested the action. If they did so in a manner that doesn't fall within general "disturbing the peace" laws -- then they can protest all they want.

However, if the protester was disruptive or threatening, and thus falls within "disturbing the peace" laws -- then they can be arrested for their conduct -- regardless of what they were protesting.

Answer 5

The reception that the Iranian leader received was characteristic of 1960's europe colonisation of Africa and Asia, arrogant and devoid of any decency. Despite his shortcomings, any one is entitled to an opinion.
The Iranian leader has valid points on many issues. We have to look at his point o view with unbiased intellectual mind. , Iran has a right to a peaceful civilian nuclear technology, the Iranian leader has a right to question the holocaust.

Answer 6

While I completely agree with the concept of free speech, the problem seems to be that most ppl don't realize organizations, such as Universities, and employers both have the right to create policies limiting speech.

Take the Imus scandal for example. A lot of ppl got upset that he was asked to resign after making an insulting statement that was out-of-line. Many of those ppl went on to talk about his right to freedom of speech, etc...

It is true that we, as he did, have the right to say whatever we want without going to jail; BUT, organizations and employers have the right to FIRE us, or prevent us from speaking on their property, when our words break their guidelines.

The University is basically saying if you CHOOSE to attend their University then you have to abide by their rules. Otherwise, get lost.

Answer 7

It's only for persons who pass the popularity contests of the majority, and not for persons who are individuals?

Yeah, let's hear it, but forewarned is fair--if someone does not agree with an opinion or foreign policy, the people have a right to speak up in defence of harmful, hurtful, or abusive language(on both sides)--especially if misconstrued or perverted language.
There must be time for constructive questions; as well as assistance with accurate interpretation of language usage, and cultural meanings--or this is negligent.

Answer 8

Well, Columbia is a private institution, I think. And if it is, then it can make its own rules and let speak whoever it wants. It's not nice, but it's the way it is. Same goes for the Boy Scouts who won't let gay people in it, which is totally wrong, but it's their right as a private institution.

Answer 9

I certainly agree with everything you said. Universities are crawling with liberals. I wish that a majority of the students, even though they are liberal, would shame him (which is probably not possible, as he is a liar and murderer), or at least embarrass him (which would embarass Columbia). I say send these "academic idiots" over to Iran to live under Sharia law. They would be whining and begging to be let back in the U.S., but the door would be SHUT.

Answer 10

Since they are a Tax payer supported School they are breaking the law by pandering to the Liberals by only choosing to let one side speak with out allowing the other side equal time now if they were totally private funded School that would be a different story